vendredi 13 juillet 2012

Maputo, 18 June 2012 (Via Campesina Africa News) – Food production and
people's sovereignty in Africa could be seriously compromised by carbon
capture projects and the so-called Reducing Emissions from Deforestation
and Forest Degradation Plus (REDD+) mechanism. They can exacerbate food
insecurity on the continent and could result in the loss of control
over land and forest resources for African farmers.

This scenario could become a reality in the near future in
Mozambique, as the country has offered its land to serve as a “model”
for carbon capture projects and REDD+.

As evening falls, Albertina Francisco*, a farmer from the Nhambita
community in Sofala province, Mozambique, returns home. She is tired
after another day of work at her machamba (a term used in Mozambique to
refer to a patch of farmland). In addition to looking after the maize,
mapira (a type of sorghum) and cassava which she grows, another task has
been added to Albertina’s workload: looking after the trees she planted
a few years ago to ensure she is not penalized by Envirotrade at the
end of the year, the company with which she has a carbon supply
contract. Albertina is required to ensure the survival and good growth
of the plants and to ensure that at least 85% of the plants received
survive.

“In addition to the maize and mapira I also have to look after the
trees now, to make sure they don’t die. I planted a lot of trees and
it’s not easy checking on them all”, said Albertina, who visits her land
twice a day.
Just like Albertina, another 1400 farmers in Nhambita and other
villages in the Púngue administrative region in Sofala have been
contracted to plant and care for trees on their land.
“When they came they said that the project is good because by
planting trees we’d receive money to fight poverty and we’d be in charge
(of the trees) even after the conclusion of the project”, one Nhambita
farmer tells us.

The project is called the “Nhambita Community Carbon Project”1.
The aim of the company that runs it, Envirotrade, is to capture carbon
through agro-forestry, and sell carbon credits on the voluntary markets,
which at this stage comprise Europe and the United States. By buying
carbon credits, companies in industrialised countries can “sell” a
positive image to their clients, clean their conscience and allow
pollution of the planet. With the implementation of REDD+ and the
purchase of carbon credits, it is expected that rich countries will
continue to emit greenhouse gases, as they will be financing carbon
capture projects in other locations, generally in countries in the
South.

In addition to using their land to plant trees (gliricidia,
faidherbia, cashew trees, mango trees, and timber-yielding varieties),
communities are also expected to protect and patrol a defined area of
just over 10 000 hectares, from which Envirotrade also sells carbon
credits through the REDD+ mechanism.

Planting, preserving and protecting the forests are all services
regulated by a contract between Envirotrade and the farmers. The
contract is for a fixed term of only seven years. Yet, as stipulated by
the clauses in the contract, the producer (farmer) is under the
obligation to plant and care for trees, and will receive an annual
payment, which varies according to the system chosen and the size of the
area of land used. After seven years payments cease, but farmers still
have a duty of care.
“It is the farmer’s obligation to continue to care for the plants
which they own, even after the seven year period covered by this
contract”♦, one of the articles in the clause on obligations of
producers stipulates.

According to Envirotrade trees capture carbon for a period of 50 to
100 years. The farmers’ duty to care for the plants and forests thus
automatically spans several generations.
“If a farmer passes away during the contract period, the contract,
all the rights contained therein but also all the obligations, are
transferred to their legitimate/legal heirs (children)”, António Serra,
National Director for Envirotrade clarifies.
It should be noted that the contracts regulating these activities do not include a section on farmers’ rights.

Nhambita is a community in Gorongosa district, in the administrative
region of Púngue at the centre of Mozambique. It is extremely
biologically diverse and boasts a wealth of vegetation and forests to be
envied.

The European Commission contributed about 1.5 million Euros of
financing to Envirotrade between the start of the project in 2003 and
2008, for research and testing in Nhambita. However the European
Commission cut its funding, one of the reasons being irregularities
observed in the proposed method for measuring carbon.

What’s in it for the farmers…

According to Envirotrade their projects aim to alleviate poverty (in
communities), and contribute to sustainable development and biodiversity
conservation. “It is a new way of doing business”, the company, which
believes it is offering a new way of life for individuals and
communities, states on its website (2)

The services set out in a farmer’s contract which we gained access to
were to be provided through planting trees in an area totalling 0.22
hectares (22 by 22 metres) in the farmer’s yard; and the farmer will
receive a total of 3,215 Meticais (128 USD) over the seven years of the
contract period. In order to earn enough money to actually alleviate
poverty, this farmer would need access to a much greater land area,
diversified systems, and would have to plant many more trees – which
proves virtually impossible.

The most highly paid system run by Envirotrade is termed “forest
plantation” and can earn the producer about 17.500 Meticais (670 USD)
over seven years.

These amounts refer to one hectare, which means the amount may be
lower or higher depending on the area of land in question. Nhambita’s
farmers have an average of one hectare of land per family.
António Serra, National Director for Envirotrade in Mozambique,
explains: “A farmer who has one hectare can sign a seven year contract
one year using the bordadura system (border strips), the following year
sign a seven year contract for consociação (mixed crops) covering the
same area, and the third year sign a seven year contract under the
quintal (yard) system. In this way the producer is involved in the
project over a long period of time.”

However, do not let anyone be under any illusion that they will
become rich through REDD+ and planting trees: “Carbon trading is not
there to make anyone rich (farmers). The market itself shows that there
are many costs involved. This is not going to make communities wealthy.
Individuals need to have other sources of income”, Envirotrade’s Carbon
manager said in an interview.
Envirotrade stopped issuing new contracts three years ago, because of financial difficulties.

Food sovereignty in danger
It is important to stress that commitment to this type of service
could aggravate food insecurity for the community or for families, if
the timescales and size of land areas needed to plant enough trees to
ensure higher earnings are taken into account. This will lead to farmers
“growing carbon” instead of growing food crops.

On the other hand “the current focus on the economic value of the
forest [as promoted by Envirotrade] should not make the biological,
spiritual and cultural values less important, as they [the communities]
have been providing effective
conservation for generations”, a study (3) by Jovanka Spiric, who has researched the socioeconomic impact of the REDD programme in Nhambita, states.

A considerable number of farmers have abandoned farming and dedicate
all their time to maintaining firebreaks and patrolling forests in the
REDD+ area.
Gabriel Langa*, a father of four with two wives, is the head of the
group which manages firebreaks and patrols Bloc 2, one of the
“protected” REDD+ areas in the Bué Maria area of Púngue. Before, he used
to farm to feed his family.

“Now our main activity is firebreaks. I don’t have time to go to the machamba”, Langa says.
Langa will earn 8845 Meticais (340 USD) during the firebreak phase
for the “conservation” area, which he will divide between the group of
four that he manages.

Forests were never at risk of disappearing…

According to Envirotrade, the buffer zone of the Gorongosa national park (4),
where Nhambita community is situated, was at risk of disappearing due
to intensive logging (for coal) and unchecked land clearing by fire.

Community leaders together with the Committee for Natural Resources
management for Púngue, operating out of Nhambita in Gorongosa and set up
before the arrival of Envirotrade on the scene, dismiss this hypothesis
and claim that the committee has always known how to care for and
preserve the forests and land in the area.

“The community had no problem with this and always knew how to manage
resources. With the creation of the Management committee in 2011 this
capacity was strengthened because we were trained to do it”, said
Francisco Samajo, president of the committee. “This is probably what
brought Envirotrade here”, he added.

Reacting to this, Aristides Muhate, Carbon Manager for Envirotrade
says: “Sometimes people want first and foremost to assert their merit.
Everyone knows that this area would be a hotbed of illegal logging
today. He (the head of the resource management committee) wouldn’t even
have the resources (money) to carry out the patrolling that he does”.

Envirotrade finances the Natural resources management committee,
which in turn pays inspectors to patrol the forests and “protect them”
from members of the same community.
Although the farmers admit to having benefited in some ways from the
Envirotrade project (in terms of fruit trees, some annual income, health
centres, transport in case of illness) consensus does not seem to
prevail regarding the assertion that the communities were very poor and
that their forests and lands were poorly managed.
Another Nhambita farmer, Raimundo Eduardo, stated that he had never
considered himself to be poor, as in his own words “I have a machamba
and I always worked”.

Giving up tree planting: Not everyone is finding the activity fun

Juvenal Francisco, 31, a farmer from Nhambita, gave up tree planting in 2010 as he felt the services did not bring him income.
“It seemed as if I was only working for them and I wasn’t seeing any
benefits for me”, Franciso tells us. He took the initiative of
contacting Envirotrade himself to make clear his desire to give up the
activities.

What motivated Francisco to terminate the contract was the fact that
as of year four he had not been paid the annual amount set out in his
contract, allegedly because he had been unable to care for the plants in
the way required by Envirotrade. Juvenal Francisco is of the opinion
that Envirotrade failed to comply with one of the conditions it
committed itself to, namely that of paying him for a seven-year period.
“As of year four they stopped paying me and they never explained why”, he said.
Juvenal says he planted over 900 timber- and fruit-yielding plants
starting in 2007. Now, he dedicates his time to growing maize, sweet
potato, mapira and cassava.
This has been a great source of conflict between Envirotrade and many
farmers. A high number of “contracted” farmers find their earnings
reduced for not achieving the 85% survival rates set out in the
contract. Our reporting team also learnt that over the past three years,
there have been delays to payments for environmental services, due to
financial difficulties.

Farmers don’t know what they are involved with
The Nhambita communities are not familiar with the REDD+ concept; and
despite the fact that some farmers know that they are planting trees
and preserving forests “to sell carbon”, they show a lack of deeper
understanding of the concept and its mechanisms.
Envirotrade's National Carbon Manager, forest engineer Aristides
Muhate, justifies this fact. “Information exists on different levels.
There’s no reason why we should waste time explaining complicated
concepts to the farmers, ” he says, pointing to the low levels of
schooling among most of the population of Nhambita and the surrounding
areas. This could be considered in breach of the right to advance
information and free consent before operations started on their lands.
“We know that our income from planting trees comes from carbon. I
don’t know anything more about it”, Elias Manesa from the Mutabamba
community confessed, showing that he didn’t understand what carbon is.

The lack of comprehensive information surrounding Envirotrade’s
carbon business involving community resources calls into question the
transparency of the process. The poor or complete lack of understanding
among farmers of the concepts linked to REDD+ and the carbon markets
means that they are managing their resources and getting involved in the
business without awareness of its full implications: allowing Northern
polluters to continue to release carbon into the atmosphere. This poses
risks to these very farmers’ well-being if we take into account the fact
that these emissions will have a negative impact on Mozambique, for
instance through droughts and flooding.
Another woman, who does not have a personal contract with Envirotrade
but who has planted and cares for trees because her partner decided for
both of them to get involved, was also unaware of the ultimate
objectives of this activity.

“All I know is that my husband receives money (annually) because of
the trees we’ve planted. I don’t know any more details”, she said. In
fact, over half of the farmers who have signed contracts with
Envirotrade are male. Few women own land in Mozambique, even though they
constitute the group which devotes the greatest effort to food
production and other land-linked labour.

Emerging social conflict

Signs of social conflict linked to payments for environmental
services (PES) between Nhambita community members are beginning to show.
This situation could become more serious in the future.
Farmers who do not benefit from PES are displaying resentment for not receiving any money from Envirotrade.
In other REDD projects in countries like Indonesia, payments for
environmental services are creating inequalities due to income
disparities, and this tends to create divisions in the community and
jeopardize organisational, social and cultural cohesion.
As an example, the French newspaper Le Monde Diplomatique (5) recently published a story on the case of farmers being displaced because of implementing the REDD programme in Mexico.
Jossias Jairosse* arrived in Nhambita recently and works in the
community carpentry workshop in his village. Envirotrade had stopped
issuing contracts when he settled in the community. He feels resentful
and inferior to his neighbours, as they have annual income levels which
he has no hope of reaching.

Mozambican land in demand with others for REDD+ projects

A company backed by British capital is eyeing up about 15 million hectares (19% of Mozambican territory) for REDD+ (6)
activities. Cases of land grabbing linked to Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation could make this figure even higher,
if agrofuel production and the growing of different monocultures are
included here. These practices can also be included under REDD+ as the
system includes carbon credits from cultivation and land use and not
just from forestry. According to the 2008 national forest inventory,
about 70% of the country (54.8 million hectares) is currently covered by
forest and other wooded areas. These areas are at risk of being
exploited for carbon capturing.

Mozambique finds itself in a privileged position, among the most
“coveted” countries in Africa when it comes to the implementation of
so-called development projects benefitting from foreign investment. The
World Bank for instance considers Mozambique an appropriate location for
REDD projects, the Clean Development Mechanism (7) and industrial agriculture.
Companies in the North have been acquiring land in Mozambique for
export-oriented production, agrofuels and now for REDD+. Currently even
the so-called emerging economies, namely India and Brazil, are acquiring
land for use in agro-business and for mining.

In most of these cases local communities, and particularly farmers
and indigenous populations, are heavily affected and often their rights
are violated. In the case of the REDD+ programmes there is a significant
risk that farmers will find themselves serving as employees of
companies who use forest resources and local land to take advantage of
the carbon credits system internationally, thus maximising their profits
but not necessarily contributing to eliminating poverty in the
communities.
In Uganda 22 000 farmers were displaced from their lands by a forestry carbon offsetting project in 2011.